No one is going to surprised by the outcome of last night's Leader's debate on green issues. Siân Barry Greens won, i think. Corbyn and Sturgeon both covered their ground without being completely convincing on some issues. Adam Price began well but failed on sheep and slipped up a bit from thereon. Jo Swinson struggled, again. But that said, they were all arguing for nuance: the substance was commonality, as it should be on this issue.
But that was possible because of the absence of Johnson and Farage. The latter is no surprise, or loss. Johnson's absence is much more revealing.
The stunt of sending Gove in his supposed place was pure contempt from Johnson: he wanted to belittle the others present. It was deliberate, right down to bringing their own camera team.
The refusal of Johnson to come shows that not only has he has no desire to engage normal political processes but also with younger people. I hope those who vote recall this.
The contempt is also for the issue. Johnson is a climate denier. You can't refuse to engage with this issue and be anything else. No doubt he is so for all the reasons all those on the right who deny the reality of the climate crisis are. They believe the neoclassical economic assumption that nature is a free gift provided to us (presumably by a paternalistic god) to use without consequence, and that if there is any consequence then the market can in any case instantly correct it. Both assumptions are standard, and taught (albeit without reference to that god) on most economics courses, by implication, even now. Climate denial is hard wired into these people, however alien to reality it is.
And this is far from the only issue on which Johnson's behaviour is alien. His refusal to play this election by the normal rules of decency, fair play, mutual self-respect and integrity confirm that Johnson really is a man willing to cheat, lie and sabotage his way to power at any cost. We have not seen a politician so brazen before. I hope we do not again.
Implicit in all this is one thing. It is Johnson's ego. What this election is about is whether or not people are foolish enough to believe that a man who has already proved himself so untrustworthy should run the country.
Apparently older people who tend to be men think he is.
Younger people, more likely to be women, don't.
But this time, after the event it will be possible to say that those who voted for him are worthy of our contempt. They knew they were voting for a contemptible person, who is indifferent to them, their families, their futures and that of this planet. Brexit created a shibboleth in our society. This election is confirming it. And on one side there are people who lack all self respect and decency. You could not vote for Johnson otherwise. I hate to say it, but the divide is now as blunt as that. And it needs to be said.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
But people will vote for him and he will win the election hands down. Not because he is a great PM, far from it but because of the lack of credible opposition. The damage is long standing and has been done. Corbyn is loathed by voters for what he represents. He is momentums puppet and the electorate do not want a hard left marxist entity in control. It pains me to say it that the Labour Party is loathed by the very people it should represent. The inquest should follow but it won’t. The Labour Party membership and traditional labour Party voters are miles apart and that is the tragedy that is before us
How many trolling names do you have?
You’ve tried more than one here this morning, I am sure
It destroys your argument
Sian
Given the torrid time that Parliament has given the Anti-European extremist Tories about BREXIT, would you expect Parliament to let any dyed in the wool Marxist copy comrade Stalin and wreak havoc?
No, Parliament wouldn’t. Because that is how our Parliamentary democracy works. Yet this fact is something that you and other Corbyn shills just completely ignore.
Even Marxists in this country have to work within the Parliamentary system Sian.
“Sian” says
“Corbyn is loathed by voters for what he represents”
Utter nonsense. Corbyn is hated because of a sustained, and highly orchestrated media campaign of vilification. Nobody who listens to what he says hates him, for who he is or what he represents.
I don’t think he’s particularly ‘great’, but hatred of him is entirely irrational.
Agreed
Brought their own cameras. OMG! He even sent his father with Gove, presumably in some grounds that Stanley is some sort of environmentalist. Editor Ben Dr Paer told them that it was leaders only. Then Johnson had a temper tantrum and threatened Channel 4 about their transmission remit for the melting I’ve sculptor stunt. I thought it was amusing myself.
I’m voting Lib Dem this time, but let me get this right. The 13 million or so that vote Tory all “lack all self respect and decency”.
If I had to vote Tory tactically to keep out the current Labour Party I would. Would that make me lack decency?
And you wonder why the left struggle to win any popular vote recently with attitudes like yours!
Yes, it would
Succinct. And I concur.
Very disturbing times indeed. This blog strikes a very uncomfortable chord with me. And it brings me no joy to say it, not because I find you disagreeable – quite the opposite – but because I truly despair that this is the situation we find ourselves in.
How do we recover from this, that is the question. It’s not one I can readily see an answer too.
Yes, it beggars belief that anyone with a shred of decency would vote for Johnson yet they will and in sufficient numbers to give him a majority. As with Trump’s election it probably says more about the voters than who they voted for. There doesn’t seem to be any rational explanation. Simon Jenkins offers yet more insights today (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/28/election-identity-money-tories-labour-public-spending). The bottom line is that It’s all about corrupt money which understands the essence of Howard Zinn’s comment: “If those in charge of our society – politicians, corporate executives, and owners of press and television – can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves.”
But back to C4’s debate, which I watched. Not surprisingly, Siân Berry was the stand-out politician. She probably understands the topic in more depth than all the others put together. However I was left disappointed and agree with Zoe Williams’ comment that “It showed the insufficiency of politics in the face of this disaster” – https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/28/the-climate-crisis-leaders-debate-what-did-we-learn. If I recall correctly there was little, if any, discussion about the fact that life simply cannot continue on the same trajectory as it has for the past 250 years or so. It’s a whole new ball game in which ‘the same intelligence that created the problem cannot provide the solution’. The over-used cliché that it’s way too late to rearrange the deck-chairs is the truth. So why did they not focus on how to put aside their differences, come together as a focussed political force, with a visionary plan underpinned by a governmental economic agenda that would finance this crucial transformation to ensure the survival of future generations? Siân Berry’s conclusion was spot-on, albeit a touch muted. It’s about radical, systemic change not plastic shopping bags or a bit of back-yard gardening.
I truly shudder to think what the outcome of another 5 years of Tory administration will be.
Much to agree with there’s
This is going too far. It is a recipe for civil war. Millions and millions of civilised, decent people will vote Tory in the next election. The issues go much deeper and broader than the antics of a “here today, gone tomorrow” politician. Many revolve around identity and memory. Simon Jenkins in today’s Guardian puts his finger on some:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/28/election-identity-money-tories-labour-public-spending
It is easy to sneer at the empire nostalgia often exhibited, but some of the memories retain a visceral edge. It is a generational thing. Many of those who lived through the ’70s are resolved that there will never be a repeat. Despite the widespread popularity of Labour’s pledges to restore the welfare state and to seize control of the commanding heights of the economy, too many voters have vivid memories of the late ’70s when the wheels came off – and these have been passed on to those who were too young at the time to remember or who were born later. Robert Skidelsky, in the 3rd volume of his biography of Keynes, records how the response of Richard Kahn, one of Keynes closest disciples, sticks in his memory when Skidelsky asked him in the mid ’70s why Keynesian policy seemed to be breaking down: “We never thought the leaders of the trades unions could behave so stupidly”. It should not be surprising that many voters shudder when they contemplate Jeremy Corbyn as PM and the roles that Len McCluskey, Seumas Milne, Karie Murphy, Andrew Murray and other trades union leaders and left-wing blowhards would play in a majority Labour government. It is ironic that John McDonnell does not provoke anything like this revulsion.
There is little point lamenting if the right-wing press seeks to stir up these memories; their efforts would have no traction if the memories did not resonate deeply and widely.
And so, it’s not about Boris. He just happens to be leader of the Tory party – and he has enough sense (or those around him have) to minimise his exposure to scrutiny. For many, many voters, instinctively small-c conservatives, it’s about avoiding a re-play of the late ’70s.
Sorry Paul, but you’re entirely missing the point
Stop obsessing about Corbyn – which it is easy to do as I well know and his team have no lobe for me – and deal with the real issues
It would help
If demonising the 40% or so of the electorate who appear likely to vote Tory is deemed acceptable, then you’ve lost me. Democracy is about persuading those outside one’s echo chamber to accept some or all of what one is proposing or, at the very least, securing their consent to comply with the implementation of these proposals – even if they continue to disagree.
The “real issues” will still loom large after the election, but they will be far more difficult to resolve if the Tories win a majority. On current trends it appears almost certain that Labour will fail to achieve the modest objective of holding enough seats which, when combined with those of other parties, would deprive the Tories of a majority.
The apparent lack of any commitment to take the necessary steps (and, indeed, the determination not to take them) to avert this failure is bordering on the criminal.
I’m nit seeking to persuade anyone
I am not a party politician
I am commenting that supporting Johnson appears to me to be accepting the abandonment of all the values that have underpinned our democracy and in no small part our society
And yes, I do think that fair comment
Paul
We are already in the throes of a civil war – since 2016 in fact. And then there is the war that the Tories have been waging on this country and its institutions since 1979.
Civilised, decent … and ignorant.
Paul, I lived through the 70s, buying a house and trying to cope with inflation.
Your account follows the narrative of the newspapers. It was all the fault of the Unions demanding too much money.
In the early 70’s Heath introduced the Credit control and Competition Act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_and_credit_control_(UK)
It led to an increase in credit. When I bought my house for about £5,000 the mortgage was limited to two and a half times our income. I sold it 1973 to move jobs and got £10,000 for it.
The resulting inflation pushed trade unions to agitate for more money. Even Enoch Powell said that they were not the source of the inflation. However, it suited the Tory press to put the blame on their opponents. They certainly did not want to criticise the investment and management of industry.
Then in 1973/4 the price of oil quadrupled. This had a knock-on effect on prices and the response was wage policies.
In 1976 we applied to the IMF for a loan. This is held up as a result of Labour mismanagement but I think I am right in saying the IMF loans foreign currency for international trade, not to spend internally. The World Bank does that. It was paid by by the time they left office.
There was the winter of discontent and the million unemployment.
Thatcher said monetarism was the answer. That was abandoned a few years later. Unemployment was almost three million. Memory can be selective.
Ian
Very interesting post.
Did Labour mis-manage the economy that badly? After all, the West had decided to back Israel in Palestine and that led to the Muslim oil producing countries teaching us a lesson by upping the price of the cheap oil that Roosevelt had negotiated in the post war period. The West backed the country without the oil and were made to pay for it with higher prices. Result – oil based inflation in the West – all of it.
And as for the trades unions, it’s nice of Powell to say what he said but had Labour and the unions listened to a woman called Barbara Castle (In Place of Strife), we might have been able to ride the storm a bit better. I for one blame the unions for Thatcher and refused to join one for years on that basis. They should have worked with Labour – not undermined it.. Men, eh?
Denis Healey has recounted this period well. The IMF put Labour under immense pressure with their neo-liberal policies and gave birth to the big lie that only markets can run the economy properly if a Government reduces its activity (how many crashes have we had since 1979?). The advice that they got in a world of burgeoning neo-liberalism may have been totally wrong.
Callahan’s phrase ‘You can’t spend your way out of a recession’. How does that stack up now? How did it stack up then? Was Britain bankrupt then – a nation that printed its own currency?
I perhaps should retract my inclusion of the mention of Johnson’s father accompanying Gove to the debate. It was early in the morning and I was probably uncritically reading John Crace’s column. Mea culpa.
Sending one’s father would be an odd choice for a situation wherein one would normally expect to simply send a note from one’s mother. Still, can it be long before Mother Johnson rolls up to plead for her little boy, I wonder?
Bill and Larry, have you not seen the photo of Pa Johnson standing next to Gove in the foyer? They had cameras and were miked up apparently. All over Twittersphere last night. Pa was then, presumably as a consolation prize, interviewed in a BBC studio ( Victoria Derbyshire ) this morning I noticed as I channel hopped.
I am arranging to cancel my tv licence end of year.
No, Hazel. I hadn’t seen it. Many thanks for updating me.
It’s really amusing watching you getting more hyperbolic the more it looks like the Tories are going to (justifiably against the shower that is Labour) win a decent majority.
You’ve really gone off the deep end. You aren’t even rational even more – and it shows.
No, what you’re actually doing is prove my point
I’m standing up for what we once called decency and you say I’m not being rational
That’s my case made
I don’t think it’s very rational to claim that anyone voting Tory “are people who lack all self respect and decency. You could not vote for Johnson otherwise.” Your words, not mine.
A lot of people would say that voting for an anti-semitic, terrorist supporting Marxist whose policies would do horrendous damage to the economy and the country would be indecent. Quite a few Labour MPs certainly feel that way.
You don’t though, for some reason. Though I thought you kept saying that you are politically neutral? Or is that only when people question your funding – where you have to be to maintain it?
Indeed my words. With more than emulate evidence supplied
So let’[s look, Alberti very briefly at your claims
There is no evidence Corbyn in an anti-Semite. There is evidence he has not tackled the issue as well as he might. That’s it. But the Tories are worse and the SNP have not had a good day. So let’s move on
Terrorist supporting? Really? Or seeking peace solutions. I supported Mandela who was a convicted terrorost – because he was . And I supported Marin McGinness in office and he was a terrorist. Does that make me a terrorost? Does that make all who supported Mandela terrorost supporting? Of course not. Nor is Corbyn.
And Marxist? I suggest you learn more about Marx. For the record, I suspect John McDonnell is. Co9rbyn, I am not sure. And so what? If you think that is Russian (and I bet you do) then Boris is the Russian puppet, like Trump. And I bet you have notnbhing to say about it
Why not?
Why not worry he appears to be an agent for another state?
As for party political – note my position on Scotland. It is not reconcilable with being Labour. ANd on Green and economic issues I criticise the SNP, and so on.
You’re simply trolling, and your last comment proves it
Now, very politely, stop proving my case
Steven says:
“Though I thought you kept saying that you are politically neutral? Or is that only when people question your funding — where you have to be to maintain it?”
I think supporters of right wing neoliberal political economy in the UK would do well to question where the funding for their own think tanks come from before they cast aspersions about funding sources. The US was still a foreign country last I heard….and their global domination strategy is not a particularly closely guarded secret. Their principle modus operandi in recent times has been political interference (sometimes with highly visible military backing) and economic ‘muscle’ through manipulating other nation’s trade freedoms.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/29/wealthy-us-donors-gave-millions-to-rightwing-uk-groups
Whilst I agree in principle with what you are getting at, Boris and his party have also become experts at dividing and conquering the British people.
Right from the off in 2010, we know that the Tories under Cameron and Osbourne knew very well what the austerity that they were going to do would potentially backfire on them.
May made her contribution too – look at Windrush.
Therefore the only obvious answer was to get the public fighting amongst themselves – just as Lynton Crosby had done in the Australian elections previously that led to videos on Youtube of Aussies throwing insults at immigrants on buses – the Tories with his advice began to do the same. The enemy of the people actually resides in Government, so such anti-social Governments quickly set about finding alternative enemies based on society’s pre-existing for voters to see as a diversionary threat.
In the early 2000’s I was struck by resentment to teachers and public sectors workers revealing itself in social interactions. How did that come about? Well, all you had to was read the Sun or the Daily Mail and there it was – stoking up those who increasingly were getting shoved out of New Labour’s turning a blind eye, light touch ‘miracle economy’.
For me it depends on how I feel at the time. Sometimes I just feel that people are dumb; other times, outraged at just how badly people are being manipulated.
As Simon Jenkins pointed out in yesterday’s Guardian :
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/28/election-identity-money-tories-labour-public-spending
In many respects, this is fascism in my view – using popular albeit unreasonable and unfounded sentiment to gain power.
It’s the oldest trick in the world.
And it still works.
Are the British people naturally stupid? Or are they made stupid by those who wish to rule? To me its the latter. Political ideas like neo-liberalism are now in the dog-house and as of 2008 effectively come to the end of their natural lives. It/they have no option but to use chaos to stay afloat.
It’s awful. I’m dreading the next 5 to 10 years. I can’t see me making it to retirement at this rate. The public sector may well vanish (my calculations reveal that as of June 2020 I would have lost nearly the equivalent of one year’s take home pay – effectively meaning that I have essentially worked 1 of those 10 years for free……for free!!) I worry about my family and hope that my kids will be OK but I keep no hope for myself.
But if my life gets worse I will not be looking to my left or right, to my neighbours or colleagues. My gaze, my resentment, my hatred even will be focussed towards Westminster and whoever resides there dismantling our country for personal gain.
I know what the Tory party has done since 2010. I know it is them and no one else. They don’t fool me. If I die knowing that, at least that is something.
@PSR “Experts at dividing and conquering the British people.”
Yes and so expert that even Faiza Shaheen, herself no slouch and fighting to dislodge Duncan-Smith in Chingford, says she has encountered resistance from people on the doorstep who just do not believe what Labour is offering is actually possible. People have been so beaten down, misled and lied to that they cannot believe it.
Of course people like the IFS, so revered by the BBC, saying the manifestos are not credible, seemingly coming down to where will the money come from whilst ignoring that any government expenditure is someone’s livelihood, don’t help.
Our economic understanding is really at a similar stage to where everyone still supports the prayer book in Latin – most haven’t even got to the stage of considering that it ought to be in English….
Peter – I too have have ran into such disbelief.
What does it tell us about the inner narrative of such people? How can they even begin to believe in something better or look for answers.
‘Beaten down’ – an American term I gather – but rather apt.
Very well said… the ‘divide and conquer’ method is in full force at every level, orchestrated by a very well funded vested interest. Speak to anyone who gleans their news from mainstream sources and there is some specific group that is responsible for the current ills of the world. Living in one of the numerous Tory ghettos it is frequently heard how Corbyn is to blame for the current state of politics (!?). Immigrants; muslims; foreigners; jews; athiests; gays and almost any other minority (or otherwise) is used as a scapegoat and distraction to divert attention away from the true perpetrators. It could even be argued that ‘the rich’ are not responsible (as a group) for the current level of inequality, so it is imperative to look at who has written the story and where it has come from before making a judgement on the subjects of the narrative.
When listening to the ill informed, it gets quite exhausting trying to counter every claim that is regurgitated about those who are to blame for their misfortune and it seems that the increasing volume of mis-truths is accelerating as the election approaches, I just hope that more people are able to see through the right wing bullship machine before they vote!
Well said, Richard – and, I agree, this is the sort of truth that needs to be told… indeed borne witness to.
The Gove ‘stunt’ was a juvenile and as vile as anything the Tories have tried to pull throughout their long slithering decline into a mire over which their predecessors would have stepped with disdain. Even – perhaps especially – Baron Douglas-Home of the Hirsel would have kept his hand-made brogues well clear of the ordure which Borisovitch and his minions represent. How the BBC got itself – and the other decently compliant party leaders – into the position of allowing Johnson to escape a bruising encounter with Andrew Neil, I cannot imagine. I can only assume that even they could not conceive of a PM indulging in such craven, deceitful and anti-democratic behaviour. And that brings me to the one very slight qualification, I’d offer to your pretty savage indictment of the Tories’ voters. Bombarded for decades by one of the worst and least honest Press estates anywhere in the western world and fed an unrelenting diet of ‘Britnat’ programming for the past 6 years on mainstream TV… maybe it isn’t too surprising that they also cannot yet realise/believe just how dishonest, narcissistically manipulative and greedy this new ERG/far-right Tory ‘establishment’ truly is?
Alas, if Borisovitch and his ‘gang’ get a majority, they will not have long to wait before they discover the horrible future in store… and we all, along with the planet, will suffer. To adapt a favourite film quote – “Don’t take no talent to be deceived. Just let’em wait awhile!”
But we don’t have a awhile any more…
and that says it all, there will be no satisfaction in ‘i told you so’ when it comes to climate
No doubt Mr Johnson (and more importantly the shadowy people who apparently control which interviews he is or is not allowed to attend) thinks he has more to lose than to gain by joining this sort of debate.
It is almost as if the Conservatives have no ideas or vision getting Brexit “done” in 2020. Are we really going to hand them a blank cheque to do whatever they like until the end of 2024?
I will just say here that, due to the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty, we live in what Lord Hailsham called an elective dictatorship. The country has managed to get along with that due to the population by and large respecting the result of each general election, and due to the restraint of those in power by and large trying to do the “right thing” (or at least respecting the law and conventions of behaviour).
But it would not take a great leap of imagination for someone with a somewhat tenuous grasp on propriety and the truth to exploit a majority in Parliament entrench their own power. Elections and a popular mandate are no guarantee against a descent into authoritarianism.
I fear for the future under a Conservative government, in a way I have not at any time before in my life. They way they behave, the barefaced lies, the strident defence of the indefensible, the lack of any kind of moral compass, it is just breathtaking.
You summarise my fears
If they behave badly enough there’ll be a backlash, understanding of which seems to have kept previous govts in check but appears beyond the intellectual capacity of this one. There was a reason Thatcher didn’t dare follow her hero Pinochet’s example; fear and understanding of the consequences. Her reasoning would still be sound today. Just because Boris has all his life been too isolated by privilege to grasp the idea of personal consequences, it doesn’t mean they can’t and won’t occur. To the barricades then, sooner or later.
One qualification to your ‘scoring’ of the debate – for me at any rate. Siân Barry’s pitch was fine as far as pure idealism goes – and that is, indeed, what the Green Party, as a lobby, quite rightly concentrates on. However, in the context of actually doing the job and securing real world progress in office, I think you underated Nicola Sturgeon’s contribution.
A little understood point – for the fullest explanation of which such a debate was not the ideal space – is the annual reporting and decadal review structures built into the latest 2019 Climate Change (Emissions Reduction) (Scotland) Act. This will keep Scottish Governments legally bound to review and politically motivated to respond to scientific appraisal of their reduction targets as things and science changes/improves. That there was shared engagement with the issue last night across the parties present was, of course, welcome and necessary – but it is indeed Sturgeon’s government, with the Scottish Greens in critical support, that is actually achieving the progress that is setting the pace here. Small wonder that the UN Climate Change Conference is coming to Scotland and Glasgow – and equally small and shabby wonder that Borisovitch’s only response has been to try to ‘bag’ the Scottish Government’s achievements (on emissions reductions, renewable generation and tree planting) as his own – and then childishly bellow that “he – doesn’t want Nicola Sturgeon anywhere near that Conference”. A charlatan and a lout.
[…] It is clear that some thought a suggestion I made this morning was excessive. I said: […]
Richard
Thanks for this piece, it is an excellent summary of the current Tories contempt for democracy and dissention. It is CONTEMPT writ large, even for dissention within their own party. Before the referendum 2/3 of Tory MPs were against Brexit, but Johnson only withdrew the whip from 20-odd (later reduced again) and everyone else toed the line, including all those whose constituencies voted Remain. It is not just the leadership – the whole party is infected with contempt.
So, why do they think they can get away with it? I suspect they think its in the bag. If the Tories do win, I fear it will be too late to do an overdue and necessary review of the postal vote system.
Bill
The Marxists maybe right in principle about the backlash idea that happens to nasty bourgeois Governments like this. But what the Marxist may not have countenanced is that the ‘revolution’ might be Right wing and not Left wing in flavour.
I suggest that that is what we are seeing now – a Right-wing revolution – a far-Right wing revolution. Really, it has to happen if the Right wants to maintain power. That is to say, by becoming more extreme.
That is where I think we are going.
Again, only time will be the revelator as to the social consequences of this and then there may be a genuine Left kick back. But the current political filth we live in will have to be endured for sometime yet I feel.
Generally now,
My advice post 12th December if it goes wrong is that you can stay and fight or go and live somewhere else if you can for this will be an increasingly harsh and nasty place to live in the meantime (and for some time). I would take the second option if I were able.
It is hard not to be judgemental on those people whose opinions sound like the right wing rags and websites they read. There’s lots of them. I bump into them time after time – all backgrounds and social class. They are like the programmed autonomous fractals that the algorithms that enable them to reinforce their jaundiced views.
I think it has something to do with the internet, where having an opinion is legitimised because you can air it and air it unchallenged and also remain unknown and not even have to know what you are talking about. The internet is like TV: it has the huge potential to contribute to human knowledge but also be used by malevolent forces to control the public. This blog (and a few others) is an exception as is it not orthodox in its approach and swims against the tide. But nevertheless having an opinion just seems to make you right.
Read Jaron Lanier in ‘Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now’ (2018).
@Pilgrim
“I think it has something to do with the internet, where having an opinion is legitimised because you can air it and air it unchallenged and also remain unknown and not even have to know what you are talking about.”
The medium is not the message. Opinions do not go unchallenged, but often the challenge is unsophisticated in its abusive combative nature and largely ineffective. Who knows what lessons the silent observers take away from these ill-tempered exchanges…?
As to the cloak of anonymity, you yourself (for perfectly good reasons I think I understand) adopt an alias on here. If and when people are talking about things they know nothing about, their opinions are swiftly debunked.
This is ‘Speakers Corner’ writ large. A virtual soapbox. Don’t knock it. It’s in its infancy still.